9/11 Commissioner: Terror Plot Shows Danger of Putting ‘All Our Intelligence and Military Resources in Iraq’
9/11 Commissioner: Terror Plot Shows Danger of Putting ‘All Our Intelligence and Military Resources in Iraq’
This morning on CNN, former 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer argued that the recent terror plot in Britain illustrated why we need to direct resources from Iraq to the global terrorist threat. Roemer said, “It’s very important that we don’t put all our intelligence and military resources in Iraq and take our eye off the ball in other places in the world.”
He also emphasized that “it’s very important that we capture Osama Bin Laden” because Bin Laden is producing “CNN quality tapes” and “communicating with hundreds of millions of potential jihadist and trying to get them to sign up.” Watch it:
It’s been four years, ten months and twenty-five days since President Bush pledged to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive.”
Full transcript:
ROEMER: We need to finish the job in Afghanistan. We need to capture Osama bin Laden. These are unfinished parts of the agenda. Afghanistan is backsliding. We are sending more NATO troops there. We are running into more problems in the south. More sorties are going on there then maybe even in Iraq and we’re having problems with the Tora Bora hills and trying to find Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri who seem very confident these days releasing their tapes and these are CNN studio quality tapes that they are putting out there these days communicating with hundreds of millions of potential jihadists and trying to get them to sign up.
O’BRIEN: You mention more problems potentially than Iraq, that’s a little bit of a quote of what you just said. Are you suggesting that maybe we should be withdrawing resources and money out of Iraq and putting it into capturing Osama bin Laden and in Afghanistan and other things? I mean at the end of the day, right, it comes down to ‘X’ number of dollars can be spent in certain things. Where do you put that money?
ROEMER: I don’t think you can cut and run from Afghanistan. I think you really have to finish the job there. We started out well. We did some things innovatively there with special operation forces and our CIA recruiting Muslim Americans to help. We did a great job there initially and now we’re seeing some backsliding and some lack of progress there, and I think it’s very important to finish the job in Afghanistan. It’s very important that we don’t put all our intelligence and military resources in Iraq and take our eye off the ball in other places in the world and it’s very important that we capture Osama bin Laden and we are not letting him release a tape every few months trying to motivate and inspire and recruit new jihadists.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
237 Responses to “9/11 Commissioner: Terror Plot Shows Danger of Putting ‘All Our Intelligence and Military Resources in Iraq’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s been four years, ten months and twenty-five days since President Bush pledged to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive.â€
Trolls, explain the above statement without using the word "Clinton."
August 11th, 2006 at 10:25 amAmericans are realizing that Iraq is not good for the war on terror.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:27 amBut tricking/scaring America into voting for the GOP is so much easier with the Boogyman in the closet.... why would they want to catch him?
Bin Laden is more useful to Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld out there making tapes than he is in a jail cell.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:29 amIt’s been four years, ten months and twenty-five days since President Bush pledged to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive.â€
Trolls, explain the above statement without using the word “Clinton.â€
Comment by Zooey — August 11, 2006 @ 10:25 am
To add to Zooey, also explain why Alec Station, the CIA unit tasked with hunting down Bin Laden was closed earlier this year by the CIA. Proof that the Repugs aren't the party to lead the GWOT. Bush would rather have a boogeyman out there to keep the fear kindled.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:30 amThere's something fishy here--I'm having real doubts about this so-called "terrorist plot." I hope some investigative reporter will dig into this.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:30 amThere’s something fishy here–I’m having real doubts about this so-called “terrorist plot.†I hope some investigative reporter will dig into this.
Comment by midwestblue — August 11, 2006 @ 10:30 am
You think?! There was an available script laying around. The foilded plot from the '90's to blowup 12 planes over the Pacific. Dust it off, arrest some dupes, et cetera ad nauseum.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:34 amThe terrorist plot in the UK appears to me to be genuine. However (a big one), it also appears that remarks made by various BushCo members in the past week (all with the "Democrats can't be trusted with national security" theme) were orchestrated and timed to be attached to the impending arrest of the terrorist suspects. That, IMO, is the real conspiracy - using intelligence and information not readily available to the public to advance the political agenda and power maintenance.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:36 amZooey -- it's very simple; the republicraps and their lemmings have moved on. It was news four years, ten months and 25 days ago, and they milked it for all it was worth (i.e., to steal two more elections). But they had no real interest in catching bin Looney -- after all, the minute they catch him, they lose their boogeyman in the closet that they can trot out every time things go south for them in the polls.
Oh, and I doubt that gang could catch a cold, let alone catch a guy who's used to living in a cave and watching his back...
August 11th, 2006 at 10:37 amSince the Republicans have proven to be complete & undeniable failures on issues of terrorism and national security, why does ANYONE support them? It's not as they've been successful in other areas - everything they touch they destroy. I'd really like an answer from their supporters! If for no other reasons than thousands of Americans have died on their horrific watch, why aren't they universally scorned by every single American and the mainstream media? I am 100% serious - I do not understand it!
August 11th, 2006 at 10:38 amPLC,
This plot may be a real one, but the way Bushco handled it was for pure political gain. Disgusting.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:38 am...Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri who seem very confident these days releasing their tapes and these are CNN studio quality tapes...
They're not in the hills then. And with bin Laden reportedly needing dialysis then perhaps they are actually in Saudi Arabia? Why not?
August 11th, 2006 at 10:39 amBuckaroo -- I've been thinking the same thing for the last two days. And here I thought I was the only cynic...LOL
August 11th, 2006 at 10:39 amZippy,
I know that, and YOU know that, I just want to hear the trolls justify OBL still being on the lam. It would be fun. :)
Off to work, have a great day, all!
August 11th, 2006 at 10:40 am#1 and #4. Excellent points that ALL Dems should pound repeatedly that will eviserate any Karl Rove and GOP slimeball disinformation and misinformation talking points.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:43 amThe look on solor-dad's face after Ned won was quite a site.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:44 amThe horns and fangs were growing fast.
It was kind of funny watching her paint on that smile while the steam was rolling out of her ears.
James Fallows' thought provoking article in the latest Atlantic Monthly (Declaring Victory, sub. req'd) includes this relevant tidbit:
August 11th, 2006 at 10:46 am
9/11 commission was a JOKE
August 11th, 2006 at 10:46 amPlease please go back to the quicktime! These flash clips are a real drag. If you're using any part of your bandwidth for something else while they're streaming, they get jittery and and the audio drops out.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:49 amIt’s been four years, ten months and twenty-five days since President Bush pledged to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive.â€
Trolls, explain the above statement without using the word “Clinton.â€
Comment by Zooey — August 11, 2006 @ 10:25 am
Well, I can answer for one troll named Tracy. I asked about this about a month ago, and Tracy replied, "Bush didn't mean it literally."
August 11th, 2006 at 10:51 amIt’s been four years, ten months and twenty-five days since President Bush pledged to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive.â€
You also should mention how many years, months, and days it took to fight WWII every time you quote this statistic. Kind of like a poke in their eye, a reminder that in the same time frame Georgie's been fightin the war on terror by messing in Iraq the free world took down Hitler. And Georgie has yet to come close to nailing just one guy, really two if you count Zawahiri.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:02 amWell, I can answer for one troll named Tracy. I asked about this about a month ago, and Tracy replied, “Bush didn’t mean it literally.†Comment by WC
ROFL!! Can Bush even speak in metaphor, allegory, or symbolically? Can he even think this way? Do any of his supporters take anything he or anyone else in BushCo says anyway but literally? What a great spin! How about "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here", "Mission Accomplished", "I don't do nuance", the Buffalo NY speech stating that we get court orders for wire-taps, "culture of life" - are these all things that are not "meant literally".
August 11th, 2006 at 11:03 am#7 ( and #5 and #6 )
PLC is exactly right.
Knowing that this was in the works - they would definitely try to position this event as a "stop gap" against a Lieberman loss.
It will back fire - in my opinion.
I heard a lot of analysts asking questions like:
"Does the Bush have a right to 'squeeze in' on the credit for this bust ..."
( No. )
and
"This is a good sign for the Brits re: their intelligence and terrorists - but is it right to assume that the Dept. Homeland Security is as competent? ...."
( No. )
Once these questions were asked, the Bush administration was ripped on all of the predictable issues.
You guys know what they are - no need to preach to the chior.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:04 am“Does the Bush have ..."
should be
"Does the Bush administration have ... "
August 11th, 2006 at 11:06 amNo one could have anticipated the occupation of Iraq would consume the majority of the resources that could and should have been targeting AlQaeda resources that wouldn't have been given such a morale boost by our occupation.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:07 amAlright, Terrorism appears to be able to come from any direction, place, and anytime. Why in the hell would you want to focus the vast majority of your terrorist-fighting resources in one single place, when a terrorist attack could come from anywhere, foreign or domestic.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:08 amAnd wasn't it a tip from a member of the Muslim community that led to the Brits investigation of this plot?
August 11th, 2006 at 11:08 amFrom Americablog.com- administration hacks crowing 'bout the timimg of the arrests-
August 11th, 2006 at 11:09 am"Weeks before Sep. 11"
includes a link to an Agence France-Presse piece re: "Bush knew on Friday, had detailed
briefings on Sat & Sunday" ( we all know Joe got beat on tuesday, and Tony Snow spent the press conference he called on Wed. to slam Dems and Lamont................
Interesting. How nice to turn a potentially tragic event into a political windfall. Scum..........
by windspike @ 6:01 am
Taking chutzpah to a whole new level, the president is using his bully pulpit to see if he can wrestle away the phrase “Culture of Corruption†by making like he is doing something about it.
In case you didn’t notice because you were stuck on the tarmac or in a security line pitching hundred dollar bottles of moisturizer in the bin at the airport, the President announced a new “National Strategy to Internationalize Efforts Against Kleptocracy.â€
Sit down and brace yourself, because you are really going to have to stop yourself from screaming at the W, Rove and Co on this next quote I’m pasting in here. Are you ready for the rolling out of the most hypocritical paragraph uttered by a president in a great long time? Drum roll please…
For too long, the culture of corruption has undercut development and good governance and bred criminality and mistrust around the world. High-level corruption by senior government officials, or kleptocracy, is a grave and corrosive abuse of power and represents the most invidious type of public corruption. It threatens our national interest and violates our values. It impedes our efforts to promote freedom and democracy, end poverty, and combat international crime and terrorism. Kleptocracy is an obstacle to democratic progress, undermines faith in government institutions, and steals prosperity from the people. Promoting transparent, accountable governance is a critical component of our freedom agenda.
from Bring it On
August 11th, 2006 at 11:12 amThis is exactly what the Dems should be saying. i hope they are watching
August 11th, 2006 at 11:15 amTim Roemer will always be my congressman
August 11th, 2006 at 11:15 am#28 - WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!He is talking about his administration, isn't he?
August 11th, 2006 at 11:17 am31. I guess ROVE is taking another TACT, and STEALING what we have KNOWN ALL ALONG
August 11th, 2006 at 11:18 amIf the U.S. and the U.K. had put the same amount of personnell, equipment, money, political will, and public relations into a law enforcement-type approach to capturing terrorists, how much more effectively we would probably have broken up the movement. How much more effective it would be for our two countries to host international conferences to discuss and promote cultural/religious understanding, trust, and tolerance. As it is, we try to kill the terrorists militarily (taking out innocent civilians in the process), occupy foreign soil, and make our people huge targets. All we have done is provide more incentive for disenchanted, angry people to join the terrorist movement, giving them their martyrdom, and justifying their position that we are dishonoring their land and culture. And before any troll tries to label me as a "terrorist sympathizer", I unequivocally abhor their tactics. Yet, I understand their motivation. And two wrongs (theirs and ours) are never going to make anything right.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:19 am...same time frame Georgie’s been fightin the war on terror by messing in Iraq the free world took down Hitler. And Georgie has yet to come close to nailing just one guy, really two if you count Zawahiri...
Comment by Fred — August 11, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Not just Hitler, but Imperial Japan, and Mussolini (a true axis of evil that was on the move and a threat to the globe). Makes Dumbya's axis look positively lame, especially when he didn't include Al Qaida in the club.
Maybe if the Repug's, who control Congress after all and can pass anything they really want, would have just implemented some of the recommendations of the 911 commission, they could point to progress. But to do NOTHING?
What about we need to fight them over there? By Dumbya's and the rest of the parrots logic, we should be invading the suburbs of London at any moment. The war in Iraq has not made us any safer from terrorism. And the $250 million a day it costs to wage that war can be uses to really implement some great security measures here, including our ports, and preserve our citizens freedoms.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:19 amThis guy is pretty smart. BushCo is working this new 'almost 9/11' as hard as they can. They deserve to have the FACT that Osama is still out there, almost 5 YEARS later, featured on CNN, where everyone can have their memories refreshed, and GWB can tell us why he hasn't kept his promise to 'get him' dead or alive. I think BushCo has overplayed their hand this time. I think an increasing number of Americans are getting tired of this administration encouraging them to be afraid all of the time, while they claim to be the only thing that is keeping us 'safe', we must trust them, or DIE! And the day finally comes when you decide to live in fear, or you decide that you've had enough, and at that point, can begin to see what is real and true, And BushCo begins to take on normal proportions, when seen with a normal perspective. Change is coming, I feel it.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:20 amMadashell. WOW. That's the best summary of Bush's own terms in office than you can find anywhere.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:20 amOne other issue everybody seems to be ignoring is the inability of the Pakistani government to exercise control over the southwest part of the country that abuts Afghanistan. Musharraf is terrified of pissing off the tribal chiefs in that area if he attempts to control them. His rule seems to be precarious.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:22 amMeanwhile, in the hills of SW Pakistan, Bin Laden et al are busy making high quality propaganda.
including our ports
Please don't get me started on that one. I live in a town where container ships pass on their way to the Port of Seattle. My senators attempt to introduce a bill to have ALL CONTAINERS checked before they reach our shores, was SHOT down, just like that.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:22 amBush knew on Friday, had detailed
briefings on Sat & Sundayâ€
Comment by David o.
Yes, and what I find very interesting, if Emperor Bush knew on Friday, why wasn't the new security procedures taken effect on FRIDAY, not this past THURSDAY? The light was blinking red again, Mr.Emperor, why did you wait?
August 11th, 2006 at 11:23 am36. that is what is so hypocritical - this is what BUSH is saying! It's DOWNRIGHT OUTRAGEOUS.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:23 am37. I believe Musharef's days are numbered. I hate to say it, but it is the truth. Then you can EXPECT ALL HELL TO BREAK LOOSE!
August 11th, 2006 at 11:25 amSince Chirpoff and Dumbya were touting that we still aren't safe and America is still a target, Chirpoff will be working right away on rerouting Homeland Security dollars from Omaha and Indiana hard targets and back to DC, NY, LA, Chicago, etc, especially since the first 3 were mentioned in the supposed plot.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:31 amThis country has not made anywhere near the same sacarfices to fight in Iraq, that we did during WWII. Victory Gardens anyone?
August 11th, 2006 at 11:31 amDRxJ, I think that it would have been a clear indication to the plotters that the gig was up if new security measures where put in place just before they were to act out their plan. On the other hand, why were these types of security measures not put in place anyway after 911? Seems to me that these new measures should actually speed up the process of boarding planes if you have no carry on.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:32 amNotice this plot pops up right after the Liberman loss, and after all the White House Insane-Clan-Cronies threaten Democrats because they didn't vote for Liberman, and how we are "helping the terrorists" (in some imaginary way). Hmmm....
August 11th, 2006 at 11:32 amSUSA, I'm not one to shy away from conspiracy theories but I think in this case it's just a coincedence. The plot had been a long time in planning and I believe from what has been written that the plot was going to become reality very soon. In fact, some members of the Bush admin were hopping to let the plot go on a little longer before taking it down. (sorry I can't recall the source and who it was that said this - way too much to read out there!) I think the British intel thought now was the time to foil the plot.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:38 amThis country has not made anywhere near the same sacarfices to fight in Iraq, that we did during WWII. Victory Gardens anyone?
Comment by Krazny — August 11, 2006 @ 11:31 am
No, instead this President and Congress think we all deserve tax cuts. And they don't have the guts to apply windfall profit taxes on the oil companies reporting profits of billions every quarter. I don't get it. If you have that much in profits, the price can't be lower at the pump? What a scam. This and all the other war profiteering not seeing the light of day in any oversight committe in the Republican controlled Congress. Truman did it during WWII.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:39 amA documentary that I believe was aired on the BBC and the CBC that I think many of you may be interested in.
http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/power_of_nightmares.htm
As for the free world stopping Hitler, Japan, and Musolini ....... when did y'all start including WWII Russia in the "free world"?
August 11th, 2006 at 11:41 amel kankukistani, I saw that program. Very good analysis in my opinion.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:43 amAs for the free world stopping Hitler, Japan, and Musolini ……. when did y’all start including WWII Russia in the “free world�
Comment by el kanukistani — August 11, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Maybe they weren't free, but they were invaded by Hitler and fought back. They didn't assist in defeating Japan.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:45 amJust read http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html and the "terrorist plot" will unravel quickly. Remember, only British citizens of Pakistani birth were involved.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:49 amThis country has not made anywhere near the same sacarfices to fight in Iraq, that we did during WWII. Victory Gardens anyone?
Comment by Krazny — August 11, 2006 @ 11:31 am
Hey, don't forget, Krazny -- they renamed "french fries" and "french toast" to "freedom fries/toast" in the congressional cafeterias...that's close to what you're looking for, ain't it??? I mean, doesn't THAT show our representatives at their best, leading us to victory?
Oh, but then again -- they just changed the names back to their french variety a couple of weeks ago -- I guess they must be over their francophobia or somethin'.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:51 amRuss Feingold is having a live online chat session today at 1 PM Eastern, 11 AM Pacific, that any one can sign up for, be in on, and ask questions. You can sign up to be in on the chat and get more information Here
August 11th, 2006 at 11:51 amThey didn’t assist in defeating Japan.
Comment by BuckarooBanzai — August 11, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Read about the soviets taking chinese Manchuria from a 1,200,000 japanese army. One day after Mitsubishi´s arm factory was blown in Nagasaki. (Two things here: Japan was defeated by russians liberating Manchuria. US bombs again to make a point to the russians)
August 11th, 2006 at 11:51 amTim Roemer argued that the recent terror plot in Britain illustrated why we need to direct resources from Iraq to the global terrorist threat.
So does this mean take all intellegence and military resources out of Iraq? (At least I could understand that point)
If he means divert SOME I think he is a bigger idiot than I did before. There are not enough resources currently there and removing SOME of the ones there would result in less intellegence and support for the troops that they are leaving in place. There is alot of complaints about not enough people to do the job and he wants less there?
August 11th, 2006 at 11:52 amIf you have that much in profits, the price can’t be lower at the pump?
Comment by BuckarooBonzai — August 11, 2006 @ 11:39 am
What!? And cut back on the golden parachutes, nice retirement packages, travel perks, stock options, personal loans, executoys (private jetplanes, limousines, etc.), and other assorted benefits that the higher ups are entitled to?
You cannot be seriously asking this question.
/sarcasm off
August 11th, 2006 at 11:53 amRead about the soviets taking chinese Manchuria from a 1,200,000 japanese army. One day after Mitsubishi´s arm factory was blown in Nagasaki. (Two things here: Japan was defeated by russians liberating Manchuria. US bombs again to make a point to the russians)
Comment by Juan C — August 11, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Good point. I retract my no assist comment.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:54 amThere is alot of complaints about not enough people to do the job and he wants less there?
Comment by Tundra — August 11, 2006 @ 11:52 am
I think you missed the point. Yes, there are not enough troops there to fight the war that is unrelated to the "war on terror".
August 11th, 2006 at 11:54 amThere are not enough resources currently there and removing SOME of the ones there would result in less intellegence and support for the troops that they are leaving in place.
Comment by Tundra — August 11, 2006 @ 11:52 am
I cant find anything that resembles intelligence of whats going in Iraq.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:55 amIf you have that much in profits, the price can’t be lower at the pump?
Comment by BuckarooBonzai — August 11, 2006 @ 11:39 am
What!? And cut back on the golden parachutes, nice retirement packages, travel perks, stock options, personal loans, executoys (private jetplanes, limousines, etc.), and other assorted benefits that the higher ups are entitled to?
You cannot be seriously asking this question.
/sarcasm off
Comment by Gregor Samsa — August 11, 2006 @ 11:53 am
All part of the "Energy Plan for America" that the admin just celebrated the one year anniversary of. Yeah, America is really celebrating this bold plan.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:56 amThe russians didn't invade manchuria until the day after the fires atomic bomb was dropped. Besides much of the supply lines had already been cut by the US Navy. but I digress. I don't think we need to get into what the russians did or didn't do in the Pacific theatre.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:58 amTundra,
I hit the "Post" button too soon.
Yes, there are not enough troops there to fight the war that is unrelated to the “war on terrorâ€. What Roemer is saying is that, if the Bush administration is serious about fighting the "war on terror" -as they have repeatedly claimed they are- then the logical step to take is to (gasp!) leave Iraq.
There is no way you can fight both the "war on terror" and occupy Iraq at the same time without one being neglected, as it is happening (where is Bin Laden?). What he is saying is that the priority should be to track down terrorists and all resources should be committed towards that end. Iraq is a distraction from it.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 pmWhat he is saying is that the priority should be to track down terrorists and all resources should be committed towards that end. Iraq is a distraction from it.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — August 11, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
OH, but we need a lot of poor hopeless kids to invade all the countries where terrorists are hiding. Maybe if we ask the chinese to afford, I dont know, 5, 10, million, instead of working in the sweat shops. Like the ones US used for building the entire railroad system.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:04 pmPurchase More Colgate Toothpaste?
Friday 11th of August 2006
by Jay Randal
The 5th anniversary of the 9/11/01 terrorist attack is one month away, so to remind all Americans, there is another bogus terror threat on commercial airliners?
Instead of bombs inside shoes, or hidden in women's brassieres, or men's jockstraps, the new threat could be a tube of toothpaste, or hair gel, or smelly perfume?
Rightguard deodorant stick could be a bomb, or even a Suave shampoo bottle filled with jellied explosives, or Sea Breeze astringent instead a flammable liquid?
Styling mousse, Men's cologne, Women's hair color treatment and Conditioners, Nail polish and Make-up, Suntan products, Shaving creams: all could be bombs?
Every one of those items are banned from carry-on luggage, but still will be allowed inside any checked baggage, which could still be set-off by cell phones?
Anyway leave your personal hygiene stuff at home, and purchase Bush Regime approved GOP products at Wal-Mart, then discard them before return flight?
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Stone Mountain, Georgia.)
August 11th, 2006 at 12:07 pmGregor,
I understand his point, but his answer is to redirect resources. Personally sure the Iraq war was a stupid venture. Sure Bush screwed up (Surprising I know). Fine Iraq had nothing to do with the war on Terror. But having the answer as leave those troops with even less than the "Not enough" they currently have, doesn't work for me.
Now a standard troll would defend the fact we are there (Which I will never do, nor have done) My argument is that we are there and I can't change that, what do we do now? Having a 20/20 hindsight and we should have's aren't going to solve any of this. Sacrificing more soldiers or civilians so either side can say I told you so isn't the answer either.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:08 pmROFL!! Can Bush even speak in metaphor, allegory, or symbolically? Can he even think this way? Do any of his supporters take anything he or anyone else in BushCo says anyway but literally? What a great spin! How about “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over hereâ€, “Mission Accomplishedâ€, “I don’t do nuanceâ€, the Buffalo NY speech stating that we get court orders for wire-taps, “culture of life†- are these all things that are not “meant literallyâ€.
Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian) — August 11, 2006 @ 11:03
Well, if you recall, we got another blast of "he wasn't being literal" days after the last SOTU speech in which he said he wanted to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:08 pmAny wonder why Dubya has an approval rating of 33%?
August 11th, 2006 at 12:10 pmGregor,
Point accepted, All as opposed to some. Got it :)
August 11th, 2006 at 12:11 pmOne more thought: This event, for the second (or is it third?) time delivers a blow to the "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" dictum we have heard so often from the neo-con apologists.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:19 pmComment by WC — August 11, 2006 @ 10:51 am
Allow me to edit my previous post. I ran across the exchange when doing a search. I brought up the fact that Bush said he didn't care where bin Laden was. Tracy replied "You took that literally?"
August 11th, 2006 at 12:19 pmOne more thought: This event, for the second (or is it third?) time delivers a blow to the “we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here†dictum we have heard so often from the neo-con apologists.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — August 11, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
Also a blow to the Repub talking point that Dems want to fight terrorism with law enforcement. Hmmm...it wasn't a military invasion that thwarted the "threat". What was it...hmmm....hmmmm, oh, right...law enforcement.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:23 pmClinton on Cheney: 'I don't take anything he says seriously anymore'
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Clinton_on_Cheney_I_dont_take_0811.html
We appreciate the swift action by the British," Clinton noted, "because the plot centered on airlines flying between Britain and the United States, which obviously means between Heathrow and JFK, between Heathrow and Newark."
Clinton continued her comments on the subject by denouncing the "perverted philosophy" of Osama bin Laden--before tearing into the Vice President for recent comments about the Connecticut Democratic primaries.
"I don't take anything he says seriously anymore," Clinton said when asked about Cheney at a later campaign stop. "I think that he has been a very counterproductive--even destructive--force in our country, and I am very disheartened by the failure of leadership from the President and Vice President."
August 11th, 2006 at 12:24 pmTalk is cheap ,act now don't wait till nov. BOYCOT EXXON
August 11th, 2006 at 12:29 pmFrom: Fascists of All Varieties
By Marc Ash
Fascism at Issue
Since, Mr. Bush, you have chosen to put the issue of fascism before the public, it begs a broader dialog on fascism's role in our lives today. I accept the challenge to enter that dialog. Frankly Mr. Bush, many Americans refer to you as a fascist. There really isn't any other way to state that than bluntly. Blowing up an airliner full of passengers is barbaric and completely unacceptable, regardless of the objectives of those involved, but it really doesn't fit the definition of fascism.
From Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language:
FASCISM: A system of government characterized by rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism, etc.
That's really the heart of the matter now isn't it, Mr. Bush. One might wonder if you are troubled by by the specter of fascism in your inner thoughts when you cast the accusation wildly into the public discourse.
What would the people of Iraq say about fascism if asked? But then they haven't been asked, have they - they've been liberated, of course. What would our founding fathers say about detention without due process, without end? Electronic surveillance of all Americans, without regard for the law? What is democracy if the citizens have no confidence in the integrity of their elections? Our military hurls five-hundred pound bombs all day and all night. They land on whom they land on. It is not an isolated act of madness, it is a coordinated act of state. All the while private corporations profit wildly.
Fascism, Mr. Bush, is not your strongest card. You should change the subject again.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:29 pmFrom an ABC News story on possible American connections to the plot:
Officials say two of those arrested in London came to Karachi in the last few months for explosives training with known al Qaeda commanders.
If they know this meeting took place, were monitoring the movements of these 2, why didn't these "known al Qaeda commanders" get arrested? Or is it "we suspect they trained but cannot confirm..."?
August 11th, 2006 at 12:32 pm"MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications."
TIME
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
GASP! Did they have a warrant???? Was this the NSA???? Our civil liberties are under assault!!!!!
August 11th, 2006 at 12:38 pmNot really Exeley, I think the UK has different laws regarding search and seizure, and wiretapping then the US. If it was done overseas with the consent of the British government, I am not going to worry too much about civil liberties. You can get your panties in a bunch over it if you like.
=P
August 11th, 2006 at 12:41 pmIf we follow Bush's logic then the US should invade the UK and start bombing British neighborhoods because (a) it's better to fight them overthere, and (b) if the populace of the UK didn't condone these people living amongst them they wouldn't be there, so the British are complicit in the terrorists actions.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:42 pmI think BushCo. and the evil companies that make all our personal hygeine products are in on this latest plot. They will make a fortune on this. What can the little guy do to fight this very real conspiracy? I'm very afraid.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:48 pmHEY Exley check out the new TP post!
August 11th, 2006 at 12:48 pmso the British are complicit in the terrorists actions.
Comment by bones — August 11, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Even if they didn't condone those terrorists and are not accomplices, it could still be argued that people in the UK are being used as human shields.
So ultimately the US can conceivably bomb London back to the stone age with the moral clarity of knowing that the responsibililty for the unsuing death and destruction would fall on the terrorists only.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:50 pm#2 - "Americans are realizing that Iraq is not good for the war on terror. - Comment by Progressive Floridian
Dear Mr./Ms. Floridian - If Americans are "realizing" disconnection between Iraq and the War on Terror - (I contend they are the same war - different fronts) that is the fault of poor White House communications, and shoddy work on the part of the media.
When informed people REALIZE that Saddam was fianancing terror operations similar to bin Laden, their opinions shift. When they REALIZE that the largest state sposer of terrorism, Iran, can't wait to get its hands on Iraqi oil - and will do so with the assistance of radical Shiites, opinions shift. it is disturbing to see few investigative reports on the Iranian connection to China, Korea, Iraq, Chechnia, the Sudan, Ethiopia etc. In short this is not a One-Act play. There are many components with a common denominator.
Unfortunately, the BIG picture players in the Dem party have been undermined by the small scope seers of the Prog movement.....RIP.....
August 11th, 2006 at 12:53 pm#81, exactly. The exact same republofascist arguement they make in Lebanon works here. Terrorists living amongst the population in London, specifically targeting US citizens and airlines (American, US Airways, Continetal). So the same logic, bomb and invade the UK and if civilians get killed, well colateral damage happens in a "war".
August 11th, 2006 at 12:55 pmComment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
Crooksandliars.com is reporting that Bill O'Rielly indicated on his show yesterday that, yes, the NSA had obtained a warrant from FISA on these 2 intercepts.
Now the fun part. If true, one end of each call was outside the U.S. So this B.S. from the Bush administration about not having time to go to FISA on non-domestic calls is just that...B.S.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:55 pmMadashell,
Yep, I see that I beat ThinkProgress to punch before they had a chance to try and downplay the success of this operation.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:55 pmMA - your ignorance about Iran wanting oil from Iraq is absolutely HILARIOUS. Do you even know ANYTHING about Iran? They are sitting on miles and miles of VIRGIN OIL fields of their own. AND they will be using the EU STANDARD regarding the money - NOT THE US.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:56 pmAnd #82...you just ridiculous. Instead of making broad sweeping statements back it up with facts, or STHU.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:57 pmExley - yeah right - it was successful - but the US had little to do with it.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:58 pmbefore they had a chance to try and downplay the success of this operation.
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Who is downplaying the success?
What is being highlighted is the White House admission that the plot was thwarted by the British authorities, with little involvement from their American counterparts.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:59 pmMighty,
You do have a decent command of the language, but seem impulsive with it at times. Kind of emotional instead of logical.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:02 pmthat is the fault of poor White House communications, and shoddy work on the part of the media.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 11, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Yeah, they've done a piss-poor job at "catapulting the propaganda" as of late.
When informed people REALIZE that Saddam was fianancing terror operations similar to bin Laden, their opinions shift.
Ah... moving the goal posts and playing loose with th facts to justify the occupation.
When they REALIZE that the largest state sposer of terrorism, Iran, can’t wait to get its hands on Iraqi oil
Yeah, because -as everyone knows- Iran has no oil at all.
it is disturbing to see few investigative reports on the Iranian connection to China, Korea, Iraq, Chechnia, the Sudan, Ethiopia etc.
What is disturbing is to see anyone positing an international conspiracy of such magnitude.
Pray tell, what other countries hide beneath that "etc."? Venezuela, Cuba, Canada?
And I thought JFK conspiracy theorists were loonies...
August 11th, 2006 at 1:04 pmClearly, Britian took the lead in this successful operation and we all owe British intelligence and law-enforcement a debt of gratitude. But, according to TIME magazine, the U.S did assist, providing them with electronic communications intercepts. I am simply trying to point out the crucial importance of minitoring the communications of terrorists.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:05 pm#94, yeah and if the NSA wasn't so busy listening to the sex line calls in Alabama, we might actually monitor even more "terrorist" communications.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:07 pmshe means paying money to the families of suicide bombers to encourage more attacks against innocent Israeli men, women, and children.
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
So American troops are being killed and maimed, the American treasury is running a gigantic deficit -to save israeli lives?
If the Iraq occupation is about saving Israeli lives, why aren't they fighting it?
August 11th, 2006 at 1:07 pmSo I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. ...And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
White House, Mar. 13, 2002
Obviously, the President and his "War" on terror are complete frauds.
What happened to "dead or alive"? Well, that was pre-election political grade A bullsh*t.
Why you retard neocon supporters don't see this is BEYOND reason.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:11 pmWhen informed people REALIZE that Saddam was fianancing terror operations similar to bin Laden, their opinions shift.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 11, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
I think it is a false comparison, Saddam was sending money to suicide bombers in Palestine, Bin Laden, planned, financed and carried out, a complicated shcheme that involved sleaper cells, flight training, hijacking, and attack on American soil killing 3,000, and damaging the peace of mind of 240 million americans. They just don't stack up.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:11 pmLook, I think we can ALL agree that Osama Bin Laden is the most evil, monstrous terrorist on the planet.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#86 - "MA - your ignorance about Iran wanting oil from Iraq is absolutely HILARIOUS."
Comment by madashell
My dear Mad - Thank you for taking the time to type - I suppose your skepticism could be attributed to not understanding the logistical nightmare which would occur if Iran CONTROLLED the vast majority of Middle East Oil reserves. Look at it this way - even though Islam claims more than a billion members, that figure does NOT deter them from wanting MORE....Having a boatload of oil doesn't preclude them from wanting more....Your banal knowledge would be cute...or hilarious....if it weren't such an important topic....
August 11th, 2006 at 1:16 pmBut Saddam, too, was a terrorist and supporter of terrorism.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:17 pmOh, you mean the Lend-Lease thread where I totally took you to school and gave you a rather extensive history lesson?
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
mmmm...exley. These kind of comments arent helpful to a good discussion.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:21 pmeven though Islam claims more than a billion members, that figure does NOT deter them from wanting MORE….Having a boatload of oil doesn’t preclude them from wanting more….
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 11, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
Good to see Mighty is gaining an understanding of human nature.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:22 pmBut Saddam, too, was a terrorist and supporter of terrorism.
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
But Saddam, too, was not a threat to the U.S. or his neighbors, and our policy of containment was working quite well.
Or so said Colin Powell and Condi Rice months before 9/11.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:24 pmmmmm…exley. These kind of comments arent helpful to a good discussion.
Comment by Juan C — August 11, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Niether is calling MA a feces feces hurling wingnut, but I do it anyway.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pm[...] The 9/11 Commissioner reported that the latest terror plot in Britain showed “the danger of putting all our intelligence and military resources in Iraq.” So finally, people are saying that we shouldn’t be focusing on Iraq? Too little too late, I’m afraid. If only they could’ve been heard years ago before this whole mess started. [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pmLook, I think we can ALL agree that Osama Bin Laden is the most evil, monstrous terrorist on the planet.
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
That depends. If you were a Palestinian kid, you would say that Ariel Sharon (along with a bunch of european countries), if you were an iraqi medic working in a crowded ER after US bombings you would probably say that GWB. BUt since, you are, just another simple human being that was brought up under the "We want you" pointing army ad, the America is the best country in the world, and that kind of illiteracy, then, yeah, Osama is the greatest terrorist.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pmKrazny - Amazingly, there are differences and corresponding similarities between Saddam, Osama, Achminejead, etc. But look at the culpability assignerd to one who commits murder (by pulling the trigger) and one who is convicted of the SAME degree of murder for HIRING the hitter.
I'm off to a short meeting but will return to read your hair-splitting assertions later....
August 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pmNiether is calling MA a feces feces hurling wingnut, but I do it anyway.
Comment by Krazny — August 11, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
Ha! :)
August 11th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI think we can ALL agree that Osama Bin Laden is the most evil, monstrous terrorist on the planet.
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
Terrorist? I can go for dictator. That's bad enough for me.
The most evil? Competition is tough. Certainly in the top ten.
And none of that matches with the stated reasons for the invasion, and it certainly does not justifiy the ongoing occupation, and the killing of Iraqi civilians.
What you are doing is looking for justifications post facto.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:29 pmOh, and Juan, calling me "simple" IS conducive to a good discussion?????? Heh!
And look Juan, we ALL already know you think the American government (or Israel) destroyed the World Trade Center and that Osama Bin Laden is some innocent patsy. But I don't think even here you will find too many people who will go along with you on that rather....well, let's just say..."creative" theory.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:29 pmIran CONTROLLED the vast majority of Middle East Oil reserves.
WHICH HAPPENS TO BE IN THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 11th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#119....It was kind of a joke, Juan.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:31 pmYou mean the Republicans who removed the Taliban from power? Those Republicans?
August 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pmOh, and Juan, calling me “simple†IS conducive to a good discussion?????? Heh!
Whats wrong with simple? Would you like me to call you a sophisticated human being? That wasnt insulting. I was pointing that you always assume a moral superior status over other people. Thats wrong.
But I don’t think even here you will find too many people who will go along with you on that rather….well, let’s just say…â€creative†theory.
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
I knew that. Nothing new. People have feelings too. YOu can agree with me or not. BUt remember, there was a Watergate...
August 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmI don't need to split hairs. Saddam was no saint. He was a ruthless and brutal dictator. He supplied money to the families of suicide bombers, thus encouraging more bombers. But he was not the mastermind that Bin Laden has become.
easycheesypleasy
August 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmI suppose your skepticism could be attributed to not understanding the logistical nightmare which would occur if Iran CONTROLLED the vast majority of Middle East Oil reserves.
I understand they WON'T BE USING the U.S.'s standard in trade THEY WILL BE USING THE EU's. Now that is what the whole issue is about. So don't think for one minute I don't know what our government is really interested in.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:35 pmATTENTION ALL TROLLS - this from your other idol:
"Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively, and if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past."
Richard M. Nixon
August 11th, 2006 at 1:36 pmIt's odd that when I see demonstrations in London, or Paris, or Berlin...as well as various middle eastern ports of call, there are always placards with pictures of George Bush emblazoned with the word TERRORIST!
Remember the old term that stated that your perception IS your reality?
You will excuse me again, exley, but your logic is faulty. We haven't found a real way to deter terrorism as we do not understand the idea of individuals who are willing to die for an ideology. We have not been able to combat terrorist-style schooling because for some strange reason, we believe that spreading our form of capitalism should sate even the most backwoods of mindsets. We have done nothing to address the reality of the terrorist conundrum--there will always be a steady stream of inidividuals to take the place of the main terrorist du jour, and unfortunately, the aggressive style of your brethren at the helm have made it so the number will multiply tenfold each day.
The terrorists weren't in Iraq, sir. I would submit that 'terrorist leadership' at its roots would understand the idea of NOT being able to be pinned down to a city or country. Nonetheless, sending the boys over to Baghdad to extricate Saddam was good old Texan fun. Just ask Paul O'Neill.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#130, that's why you should never elect an idiot with zero ability to understand the world situation to be President.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:40 pmJust lurking around Yahoo, found this (many of us already knew it) from July 2005:
More here. May have to register (it's free).
August 11th, 2006 at 1:42 pmThere was no exit strategy in Iraq, and there is no exit strategy in the "war on terrorism." Amazingly short-sighted in scope, at best, the "war" is a slippery slope. On one hand, identifying the true perps and eliminating them is a given. Destroying entire nations and killing the innocent will only breed more hatred...and terrorism. What we've done in this administration's time will be remembered for generations to come. We've bred more hate and given more individuals the feeling that there is nothing to lose in fighting an aggressor. It is confounding that no one within the GOP ranks understands what an important failure this moment has become. Doesn't anyone have the ability to empathize with people who live in war-torn countries?
August 11th, 2006 at 1:42 pmThat bastion of truth--the CIA--will not admit having ties to Bin Laden? And there is no such thing as the Carylsyle Group either, right? You're grasping at straws here, exley.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pmKrazny, please explain by treating arabs as animals and non beings does not encourage terrorism?
August 11th, 2006 at 1:48 pmKrazny - you do realize that every israeli citizen must serve their military. Do you know about the REFUSENIKS?
August 11th, 2006 at 1:51 pmI never said it didn't. MadasHell. If you read my posts, you will note I speak of the disaffection that a large number of Arabs feel, and why the hatered for Isreal, and west so easily simmers.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:52 pmMddashell,
"by treating arabs as animals and non beings"
I assume you are referring to Saddam Hussein, the man responsible for more Arab and Muslim deaths than any other person.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:53 pmI am aware of the refusniks, and the women in black. I know that all Isreali's serve, and are forever after a part of the military.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:54 pmkrazny's depiction is far too simplistic, of course. Westerners continually get treated to the 'virgins' story as it is provocative but in essence, the question again comes down to beating back the agressor in any fashion possible. Whether we like it or not, terrorist acts in and of themselves act as acts of desperation.
Yet, in krazny's post, I fail to see the point. In any case, we have actually propagated the idea of resistance via tyranny and mutation. We kill, beat, rape and torture the innocent. Are you saying that without Saddam's payment, things would be under control in Baghdad...that there would be little in the way of terrorism? How misguided.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:55 pmWe, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides.
We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.
We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.
We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end.
We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.
We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense.
The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them.
Courage to Refuse - Combatant's Letter
August 11th, 2006 at 1:56 pmI assume you are referring to Saddam Hussein, the man responsible for more Arab and Muslim deaths than any other person.
Sorry exley - but your dear leader has surpassed even Saddam! who by the way kept IRAN out of IRAQ!
August 11th, 2006 at 1:58 pmNot at all horseman. Of course it is a bit illogical to equate Saddams payments to Hamas suicide bombers and the situation in Iraq. I do think there by rewarding suicide bombers, or rather the families of the bombers, it is clear encouragement.
I agree, that a terrorist act is an act of desperation, but killing innocents to prove your point, and then covering it with religious dogma, is one of the worst atrocities you can commit not only to humanity, but also to religion. Before you jump all over me abuot what Isreal is doing, I don't approve, and they share an equal part of the blame, along with The US, Britian, France, the UN, Lebenon, Syria, Iran, Saddam, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.....
August 11th, 2006 at 2:00 pmIn the aftermath of a series of terrorist atrocities — the most despicable being the mass murder of more than 6000 working people in New York and Washington on September 11 — bin Laden the “freedom fighter†is now lambasted by US leaders and the Western mass media as a “terrorist mastermind†and an “evil-doerâ€.
Yet the US government refuses to admit its central role in creating the vicious movement that spawned bin Laden, the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that plague Algeria and Egypt — and perhaps the disaster that befell New York.
The mass media has also downplayed the origins of bin Laden and his toxic brand of Islamic fundamentalism.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:01 pmNow I'm clear, krazny, and I agree. Thanks.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:01 pmKrazny - what I'm really against is ZIONISM in any COUNTRY.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:03 pmTim Roemer, Dec 1998
“I support the action in removing the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein has stockpiled.â€
Now he's telling us to abandon Iraq and turn it over to Islamic jihadists and al Qaeda? Sorry Mr Roemer, you're rhetoric sounds more like partisan political score-settling than honest opinion.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:03 pmWhat encourages terrorism is unjustice. Period.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:03 pmIf there were justice, there wont be terrorism.
#
I assume you are referring to Saddam Hussein, the man responsible for more Arab and Muslim deaths than any other person.
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
Exley if you ever want to get into who killed the most arabs, read up on the crusades. The city Tyre's streets were ankle deep in blood after the Christian forces broke the siege.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:04 pmIf there was...sorry.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#152, I agree. You become a terrorist when you know you can't get justice. It is the only option left to "right" the wrong that has been done to you.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:05 pm152,
I guess thats why we often hear the words "peace" and "justice" put together. Saddam threatened the cowboy's ego, only Americans can act like Saddam did, now there's some justice for ya.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:06 pmHippie, other than Al Gore....and I am in agreement with you here....who can you name that was against the invasion of Iraq during the time of Powell's speech to the U.N., et al.
In fact, Gore is looking better and better these days....
August 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pmYou are most welcome Horseman, I know that my position on the Middle east mess is not a popular one.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pmGet ready for troll response to "Justice", they think "terrorists" would behave in such a way no matter what, so they have to be killed. Anyway it would take another 60 years to mend any fences, so why start now.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:09 pmSorry exley - but your dear leader has surpassed even Saddam!
Wow, MadasHell...You are repeating the same canard that even liberal columnist Molly Ivins later retracted and admitted was absurd:
In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.
The only problem is figuring out by how large a factor I was wrong. I had been keeping an eye on civilian deaths in Iraq for a couple of months, waiting for the most conservative estimates to creep over 20,000, which I had fixed in my mind as the number of Iraqi civilians Saddam had killed.
There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1194
So, how DOES crow taste, MadasHell????
August 11th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#160, sorry exley YOU ARE WRONG! See the 2004, note 2004 Lancet study that put BushCos genocide at @100,000 and now it's 2006. I think it's at the very least neck-and-neck, but just as likely Bushbaby wins the genocide race.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/
August 11th, 2006 at 2:21 pmWHATEVER EXLEY - the FACT IS bush is slaughtering the iraqi's NOW - do you really think that is justification?
August 11th, 2006 at 2:21 pmNumber Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America's War? As Many As 250,000
August 11th, 2006 at 2:23 pmActually, MadasHell, you are incorrect. The only ones slaughtering Iraqis right now are other Iraqis and foreign fighters, such as Al Qaeda.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:24 pmSo we kill more than a million Iraqis and NOBODY thinks it's not going to lead to increased terrorism?
August 11th, 2006 at 2:24 pmAl qaeda DID NOT EXIST in Iraq when Saddam was in power, you dufus. In fact, if sympathizers of AQ were caught in Iraq - yes, I admit, Saddam did kill them.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:26 pmBushco have opened up a CAN OF WORMS all over the Middle East. The leader of Iran is just as despised by his own people as we are by Bush. If left alone, Iran really would have, ON THEIR OWN, become a democracy. Believe me, of all the countries in the Middle East, I KNOW Iran, and have known militant iranians under Khomeini and I also have known many others who EMBRACE the Western way of life.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pmExley keeps bringing up the 9/11 commission report that even the PENTAGON has acknowledged they lied about.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:33 pmAnd exley, perception is important. The UN imposed sanctions, but given the US calls the shots on the Security Council, the entire world sees those sanctions as US policy.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:34 pmin reference to the 9/11 commission report - LET SIBEL EDMONDS SPEAK
August 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pmalso - you all do realize that a number of arabic translators have been canned by our own NSA for being gay.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pmYou DID know the ecnomic sanctions were a United Nations sanction, didn’t you????
Comment by exley — August 11, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
You realize that every UN sanction against Israel and US have been vetoed, right? UN = US toy.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pmCan someone explain to me how the Brits capturing some Pakistanis in England justifies American presence in Iraq? Because the neo-cons sure seem to think it does
August 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pmReally exley, since Don Rumsfeld put a handwritten sign on the wall at Abu Garhib that said "the gloves come off" and we tortured Iraqis to death did we punish Don Rumsfeld or some low level enlisteds that can't defend themselves?
August 11th, 2006 at 2:43 pmBones..."UN imposed sanctions, but given the US calls the shots on the Security Council, the entire world sees those sanctions as US policy."
The U.S. calls the shots on the Security Council????? Really???? Then where was that second resolution after 1441 in 2003 authorizing the use of force against Iraq that the U.S. sought?
Where was the Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans that the U.S. sought?
August 11th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#182 - Where was the VETO that stopped the Israelis from killing Lebanese civilians? get your facts straight!
August 11th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#146 - "Sorry exley - but your dear leader has surpassed even Saddam! who by the way kept IRAN out of IRAQ! - Comment by madashell
*****Dear Mad, As usual your information is incorrect....but those who actually dig for information are not surprised....A few examples of your erroneous assertions: Topzawa genocide (and "gendercide")Halabja, al Anfal campaign, Shiite crackdown, dead political opponents, dead athletes, dead son-in-laws...My source? Human Rights Watch.... Your source?? You??
August 11th, 2006 at 2:58 pmALL you trolls can go to hell - Number Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America's War? As Many As 250,000
How does it feel being in the minority - you asshats? 33%. LOL!
August 11th, 2006 at 3:02 pm#181...Again, you are incorrect (or lying) as to what the 9/11 Commission found.
*sigh* Here it is again (But I can't keep doing your research for you, rookie. Pretty soon you are going to have to learn to research and read on your own):
Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.23
23. In his memoir,Ayman al Zawahiri contemptuously rejects the claim that the Arab mujahideen were financed (even "one penny") or trained by the United States. See Zawahiri,"Knights Under the Prophet's Banner," Al Sharq al Awsat, Dec. 2, 2001. CIA officials involved in aiding the Afghan resistance regard Bin Ladin and his "Arab Afghans" as having been militarily insignificant in the war and recall having little to do with him. Gary Schroen interview (Mar. 3, 2003).
August 11th, 2006 at 3:05 pmAnd here is a passage from Peter Bergen's definitive work on Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, "Holy War Inc."
"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.
Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"
... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]
Here endeth the lesson.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:07 pmBush has never been serious about capturing OBL - he seems to prefer keeping the fires burning for the elusive, all encompassing "war on terror." It is that war which instills fear in Americans, persuades them to give up their rights, allows Bush to shred the Constitution (which he has sworn to defend), gives Bush powers of authority above the laws, and otherwise take on the role of a maniacal monarch.
On a related matter regarding the "war on terror" and Bush's lack of effectiveness, indicating more of his lack of "resolve," the Army has fired 55 Arab linguists (presumably able to add enormously to intelligence operations) because they are GAY!
August 11th, 2006 at 3:21 pmSo Bush&Co still place private, irrelevant personal habits above national security.
http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/02/11/secure.php
"Airlines were also told to scan gels, aerosols and liquids that could be explosives in disguise."
That was in 1995.
We have all learned so much since then.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:27 pmThe Lancet 2004 piece is left wing?
August 11th, 2006 at 3:39 pmExley- Where the hell do you think the mujihadeen got stinger missiles that helped turn the tide against the Soviets. Not at 7-11. The CIA, numbnuts. Why were members of Congress taking trips to Afghanistan in the eighties? They wanted to see how our money was being sent. The assertion that the CIA never funded the mujihadeen is completly assinine. Maybe over the weekend you should pick up the book "Afghanistan, the Bear Trap." It was written by Mohammad Yousef the Pakistani intelligence officer that trained the mujihadeen with ass loads of money from the CIA.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:39 pmBuzzbomb,
Yes, the indigeneous Afghan resistance (the mujahadeen) did indeed get U.S. aid and equipment, including Stingers. But such aid did NOT go to the foreign Arab fighters that came into Afghanistan (such as Bin Laden as his group). They received no direct aid from the CIA. There is a large difference between the indeigenous Afghan mujahadeen and the outside Arab fighters.
AGAIN, read what Peter Bergen wrote in "Holy War, Inc.":
Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency’s Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, “The CIA did not recruit Arabs,†as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were “very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass.†Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs’ holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: “There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.’â€
August 11th, 2006 at 3:45 pmTatally agree ! What the #%$@ is Bush and his DUMB admistration doing . Seems like they are still trying to play Fear game with the American public. Bushes lowest ratings must tell most that Iraq is a total waste of Money that could be better spent somewhere else and our troops used to get Bin Laden !
August 11th, 2006 at 3:45 pmThey received no direct aid from the CIA. It all went through the Pakistani ISI.
Feel better now?
August 11th, 2006 at 3:52 pmI hope all you republicans realize what a mistake you made voting for Bush ! Do you realize the whole world hates him ! The only one that do not are ignorant and or are profiting off him someway , somehow.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:52 pmWhat has he done for this country ?? tell me. think about it . NOTHING ! His latest accomplisment was to veto the stem cell research , come on , what is up with that . it is not abortion . your talking about petrie trays ! CELLS !
What a joke of a president !
Bush isn't pursuing bin Laden and al Qaeda because he thinks they're such wonderful people. Reagan said they are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. No wonder conservatives like them so much, they're willing to leave them alone to do their arts and crafts in Pakistan.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:54 pm#213 I hope everyone who voted for Bush thinks about the 2,600 dead soldiers and all the rosy talk about how great Iraq is right now.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:55 pm"Look, I think we can ALL agree that Osama Bin Laden is the most evil, monstrous terrorist on the planet.
comment by exley-August 11 @ 1:22 pm
Funny that you say that. Most of the world think that way about George W. Bush. And I agree.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:56 pmThe Republicans are playing a game the Dems don't want to play. Dems say better to lose the election than lose your soul. Repugs say "they want to lose".
On Iraq: "finish the job there" is the mantra phrase of the party in power. What does it mean?
Nothing. We went to Iraq because Karl Rove told George Bush this was the way to get re-elected.
Pathetic?
Dan Good
Luxembourg
PS There are so many people in the world. What does it matter if a few die. So long as it's not me.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#
“Look, I think we can ALL agree that Osama Bin Laden is the most evil, monstrous terrorist on the planet.
comment by exley-August 11 @ 1:22 pm
Funny that you say that. Most of the world think that way about George W. Bush. And I agree.
Comment by Ho Chi Minh — August 11, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
I think they are both evil.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:00 pmAnd as for Robin Cook, yes, I absolutely say he is lying. I LOVE how your argument is, "Well, he was a fomer foreign secretary! Would he lie????" So, if I put up am op-ed by Henry Kissinger or George Shultz or Larry Eagleburger (You can Google those names to find out who they are) you would accept everything they said as gospel????
August 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pm"Thank goodness our friends and allies did not desert us during our civil war".- comment by Mighty Aphrodite - August 3, 2006 @ 3:22 pm.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Mighty Afro- is your AA meeting over? Yes I'm so glad exley explained the difference to me, dem a-rabs all look da same to me, dur. The point is they both received equipment and training by the CIA. This whole argument has nothing to do with the thread anyway, which I think is exelys goal. He sure spends an awful lot of time at this site vainly defending his whack ass positions. The bottom line MA and exely is your president is a joke and the war in Iraq is a freakin' disaster. Watch in Nov. as your house of cards comes tumbing down.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:11 pmWell, Ho, the point is that many parts of the world see Bush as a combination of terrorist and megalomaniac. What's the difference? A lot of innocent people are going to get scorched along the way.
I find it fascinating that exley and aphrodite will play the GOP trump card repeatedly: scoff at those who were in or near this administration and protest, or use soundbytes from dubious sources to back up dubious claims.
2000 proved you could steal an election. In random order, Bush and his neocon coward buddies proved that a country that did not have a serious terrorist problem could get one in short order. It proved that deploying our troops in an incredibly dangerous locale that defied logic didn't have to be the things history books were made of . Vietnam? Never heard of it. This group of people proved you could shout down your dissenters as being "anti-American", that you could demonize true war heroes and get the masses believing that you and yours--draft dodgers and combat evaders--are the true American heroes.
Now, George Galloway...a British voice in the wilderness...is reduced to being a traitor. Richard Clarke is called a traitor. Paul O'Neill, who expounded on Bush's desire to have the invitation to invade Iraq and described dub-ya's nearly peeing of his pants at 9-11's upside is suddenly a know-nothing outsider.
The list is endless. Does anyone believe the folks running this shell game anymore? Does anyone believe the apologists?
August 11th, 2006 at 4:14 pmEx- if you are so hell bent on explaining the difference in Afghanistan between the foreign fighters and the mujihadeen twenty years ago you might want to explain to your ilk the difference in Iraq between foreign fighters, the insurgency, sectarian death squads, Shia militias, etc. Most people on your side of the aisle lump them all togegher as "terrists" Preach to your own choir.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:23 pmSadly, ex is right. We provided massive of amounts of equipment to the Soviets during WWII and the Soviets were a staunch ally. 9 out of 10 Germans killed in the war were killed by the soviets. Ex, your still a douche, gotta go make a living. Peace.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:27 pmLast night I asked you why you were still on board with the neocons, exley. You were surprised at the question. Today, this article via AP. Seems there is a schism of conscious within the party. I can't imagine the average, intellectual republican supporting these maniacs much longer. Someone please grab John McCain and tell him to cut ties with these power-tripping elitists.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/08/11/politics/p034753D62.DTL
August 11th, 2006 at 4:29 pmAnd another one for exley, below. For me, George Galloway's startling testimony was the shut-up that pro-war people needed to hear. Then, the man was discredited and smeared.
Take a look at the headline of this piece, exley, and then read the last paragraph. Apparently, FOX-type of reporting is copied in other parts of the world:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006370177,00.html
August 11th, 2006 at 4:32 pmWell, they teach that lying to the people is wrong. Right now I am watching CNN ask pertinent questions regarding 9-11. That's just a little detail, right pal?
August 11th, 2006 at 4:38 pmIn case anyone would like to see Lou Dobbs talk about the "incompetent and inept" government we h now have, here you go.
exley, aphro--no need to comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahv3VdknyZ4
August 11th, 2006 at 4:40 pmClark said the other day that America was able to beat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in four years and some months. But, come 9/11/06 we will be going on five years + after the fateful 9/11. And yet Osama Bin Laden is alive & kicking!
August 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pmWhatever happened to the only Super power in the world?
Bush/Cheney team should go some place and hide their faces for good!
#252...Huh? Where do I call the 9/11 Commission extremists?????
I didn't.
You did, however.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:48 pmYawn, same old spiel, different day.
An insider, Paul O'Neill, regarding the run-up to the invasion of Iraq:
"...And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,†says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,†says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.â€
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.â€
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. "
August 11th, 2006 at 4:51 pmEntire link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
August 11th, 2006 at 4:53 pmWell, since the 9/11 Commission found that bin Ladin's group had its own sources of funding and training, I don't know why you would think that makes me believe they are extremists.
You, however, called the 9/11 Commission extremists fro providing a quote by Zawahiri.
Oh, wait, you DID realize that Zawahiri quote came from the 9/11 Commission Report, didn't you???? Oh my God, you didn't!!!! HEH! Funny!
August 11th, 2006 at 4:56 pmOkay, it's Friday night at 5:00...I am outta here. Have a good weekend all!
August 11th, 2006 at 4:59 pm[...] President Bush’s approval rating has “dropped to 33, matching his low in May,” according to an AP-Ipsos poll. Most of the people who voted for Bush in 2004 (57%) disapprove of the job he is doing. Obviously, we need to all walk around with shirts that say, “Pay Attention!” What are the other 43% thinking? Bush, Cheney and Lieberman all wasted no time in blaming Democrats for terrorism and using yesterday’s foiled plot to justify all war that ever occurred anywhere. But in fact, this terror plot is clearly an offshoot of Bush’s disastrous foreign policy, according to no less than the former 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer. [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 5:32 pm152
What encourages terrorism is unjustice. Period.
If there were justice, there wont be terrorism.
Juan C
I can't agree with that statement. It is the perceived injustice that causes terrorism. For instance someone blowing up an Abortion Clinic because they perceive abortion as an injustice to the unborn child. It is still terrorism, by stepping on someone elses rights you could give them the justice they want. You would be of course be breeding a terrorist in someone who feels they have been violated.
In the case of Israel. A 30 year old Jewish person had nothing to do with the 1967 war. They are still hunted and attacked by terrorists. There is a point where looking at the root cause doesn't help those who are in the middle of it. How could you correct the wrongs in the mideast? Ok pull out Israel all together and give the land to the muslims. Ok, fine fair enough. To do that you are punishing many people who had nothing to do with it.
August 11th, 2006 at 6:09 pmI just heard on CNN that the feds will life the ban on toiletries, drinks, etc. on planes, but not right away. Maybe next month.
Well, are they a threat or are they not?
Is our government reactionary or are they not?
August 11th, 2006 at 6:26 pmDo we have Homeland Security or do we not?
Is our leadership stupid or are they not?
Of course Squegee had to mention that elixir was a good thing. (Symantec I realize but he said he'll take it. :)
But don’t delude yourself that injustice isn’t the magic elixer in this formula.
elixir
noun
An agent used to restore health:
August 11th, 2006 at 6:53 pmso your version of justice would solve the worlds problems.
Comment by Tundra — August 11, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
Pretty much, yeah.
August 11th, 2006 at 7:47 pmI think that we all really have to learn the lessons of 9/11, which are these-- George Bush was President on 9/11/01, when the terrorists attacked. He's still President, and the terrorists are still attacking. So, the lesson is simple-- impeach Bush and Cheney, and the terrorists will stop attacking America. Take THAT To the talk shows, folks!
August 11th, 2006 at 8:25 pm"Thank goodness our friends and allies did not desert us during our civil war."-comment by Mighty Aphrodite-August 3, 2006 @3:22 pm
August 11th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Mighty Moron, the Navy labeled me as a troublemaker BECAUSE I'm a liberal individualist. I was a participant in Active Duty GIs Against the War(Vietnam).
August 11th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
The “medicalization of deviance†began with liberal psycho-babble - if every crime is based on a mental disorder, their is little culpability.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 11, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Your rant makes no sense. What "liberal psycho-babble" are you talking about? Who were the liberals that started this "psycho-babble"? Can you name names?
And it's "there is little..."
For some reason, they seek approval from people whose opinion means little or nothing.
Not true. I have never seeked your approval. As a matter of fact, I care precious little whether you approve or not.
BUT: deviating from the Party LINE is not TOLERATED. (ie: Jane Harman, Joe Lieberman, etc.)
What party line? What party to begin with? Are you seriously saying that everyone here is a Democrat? Not even you can be that obtuse. Or maybe you can...
August 11th, 2006 at 9:12 pmMA, you big fat sweaty fraud--You have never-never -posted one original thought. In your made up world, with made up friends and made up careers you are mighty impressive. Now try to use your brain and slowly put your little toe into "reality"-It hurts at first. Let's start with 'Jimmey Carter"- I guess you hate him because he does not believe in god and wore a sweater! am I getting close? He did not drop the price of oil?? Unlike your guy that has complete control and promised to keep it below $20.00. Why don't you post what GWB would have done if the same thing happened to him? Also, what the replublicans were stating needed to be done.. I would like links to that.. You can't provide them can you? Now you will "toodle" off as normal. I have always wondered why a person would enjoy being a complete jack ass ..can you fill me in on that? Noodels to you.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:45 pmTo continue the figurative burying of btrithful, who amazingly (and embarassingly) STILL claims the U.S. did not aid the Soviet Union in World War II
lend-lease
Encyclopædia Britannica Article
system by which the United States aided its World War II allies with war materials, such as ammunition, tanks, airplanes, and trucks, and with food and other raw materials. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had committed the United States in June 1940 to materially aiding the opponents of fascism, but, under existing U.S. law, Great Britain had to pay for its growing arms purchases from the United States with cash. By the summer of 1940, the new British prime minister, Winston Churchill, was warning that his country could not pay cash for war materials much longer.
In order to remedy this situation, Roosevelt on Dec. 8, 1940, proposed the concept of lend-lease, and the U.S. Congress passed his Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. This legislation gave the president the authority to aid any nation whose defense he believed vital to the United States and to accept repayment “in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.â€
Though lend-lease had been authorized primarily in an effort to aid Great Britain, it was extended to China in April and to the Soviet Union in September. The principal recipients of aid were the British Commonwealth countries (about 63 percent) and the Soviet Union (about 22 percent), though by the end of the war more than 40 nations had received lend-lease help. Much of the aid, valued at $49,100,000,000, amounted to outright gifts. Some of the cost of the lend-lease program was offset by so-called reverse lend-lease, under which Allied nations gave U.S. troops stationed abroad about $8,000,000,000 worth of aid.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047741
August 12th, 2006 at 2:48 amTERROR FEAR TERROR FEAR TERROR FEAR TERROR FEAR TERROR FEAR
August 12th, 2006 at 5:58 am'I USED to know when I was being deeply cynical and when I wasn't," said a friend who just made it into London before they closed Heathrow airport for the terrorist scare. "Now, I don't."
Back in February 2003, when Prime Minister Tony Blair was trying to persuade a reluctant Britain that invading Iraq alongside the United States was a really neat idea, tanks suddenly appeared on the perimeter road around Heathrow to guard against an impending terrorist attack.
It wasn't clear what they were supposed to do — crush the terrorists under their treads? — and no actual terrorists ever showed up, but it helped to shape public opinion. So how different is it this time?
Hundreds of flights delayed or cancelled. Twenty-four alleged conspirators arrested in East London, Thames Valley towns and Birmingham, many of them described by neighbours as bearded Muslims wearing traditional dress. Shocking revelations that they had a new technique for blowing up to 10 aircraft on the heavily travelled London-US routes out of the sky simultaneously by smuggling explosive liquids aboard. All cabin baggage banned on flights out of Britain. And in a classic case of panic envy, the US Department of Homeland Security declares a red alert in the United States, too.
That should scare the public into supporting the "war on terror" a bit longer, even if the real wars are about something else, and are going seriously wrong: Iraq sliding into civil war, the Taliban coming back in Afghanistan, Israel flattening Lebanon without making any significant dent in Hezbollah's capabilities. Most people will assume that with all that smoke, there must be some fire.
Of course there's some fire.
Terrorists of various sorts have been in business for about 40 years, and the present crop of Islamist terrorists are especially dangerous since they are willing to kill themselves along with their victims. But in the United States more people die on the roads every single month than Islamist terrorists have killed since the year 2000, and in Britain it's more people every week. Yet neither country has tried to restrict access to cars.
Maybe it's cynical, but there are strong grounds for suspecting that this is all a charade. If they infiltrated these terrorist cells many months ago and have now have arrested most of the members, then why would they institute drastic new security measures on flights at this point? And did they really only realise in the past few days that explosives come in liquid form as well?
After the arrests in Britain on the night of August 9-10, Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, assured the media that "during the investigation an unprecedented level of surveillance has been undertaken … We have been looking at meetings, movement, travel, spending and the aspirations of a large group of people . . .The investigation reached a critical point last night when the decision was made to take urgent action in order to disrupt what we believe was being planned."
Fair enough, although this is the same organisation that took "urgent action" to kill an innocent Brazilian called Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005 "in order to disrupt what we believe was being planned", and earlier this year shot and wounded another innocent person in London in the course of a raid on a Muslim family in east London based on manifestly unreliable information.
So maybe 24 terrorist plotters have been arrested in Britain, or maybe 24 innocent British Muslims with full beards, or more likely some combination of the two. But whatever the truth of that, why the panic?
British Home Secretary John Reid boldly asserted that the "main players" had been accounted for, and Scotland Yard Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson proudly announced that "we are confident that we have disrupted a plan by terrorists to cause untold death
and destruction and commit mass murder".
Well done, lads — but if you have them all locked up, why are you closing the airports and bringing in all these draconian security measures now? A couple of months ago, when you first uncovered this plot but didn't know all the "main players", I could understand such drastic precautions, but why now?
Maybe it was those explosive "liquid chemicals" they were planning to smuggle aboard the planes. After all, it's only 160 years since nitroglycerine was invented. It's a mere 11 years since al-Qaeda associate Ramzi Yousef plotted to blow up 12 airliners flying across the Pacific at the same time with nitro carried aboard in contact lens solution bottles. Who could have foreseen this? Quick! Bring in new security measures!
They really aren't that stupid. They have been checking liquids that people want to carry aboard flights at airport security checkpoints for years. There would
be no need for drastic new security measures, even if the alleged British terrorist ring were still on the loose.
This is all hype, designed to frighten the British and American publics into supporting the wars of their deeply unpopular governments (and the war of their Israeli ally as well).
Or am I being too cynical? Maybe they're just stupid. I really don't know any more.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist.
August 12th, 2006 at 6:45 amJust had to be the number 300 post on here > lol.
August 12th, 2006 at 7:41 amTHE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR!
August 12th, 2006 at 9:16 amCongratulations to the insurgents another milestone acheived , once again well done. 2,600 members of the U.S. military have died actually 2601 , welldone keep up the good work
August 12th, 2006 at 11:07 am#281 - "BTW Jesus cared about the poor too, but you and your filthy rich would only grind the downtrodden into the dirt." - NVA Ho
I agree that Jesus was the perfect example of helping the poor. He just didn't jump in other peoples pockets to do it....As usual, I hit the mark and YOU missed the point, but really, what else is new???? BTW, WHO do YOU think fund the charities that assist the poor - the poor??? No, Ho, wealthy and middle class people, "evil" corporations and smal business donate time money, and materials to help the unfortunate. Hypocrite.....
August 12th, 2006 at 1:03 pmMA go mix up some chemical bombs for Bush > lol.
August 12th, 2006 at 4:29 pmOh, Jay - You sound terribly DISTRESSED over the racist Cynthia McKinney's scathing defeat....you POOR dear.....
August 12th, 2006 at 6:44 pm[...] 9/11 Commissioner: Terror Plot Shows Danger of Putting All Our …Think Progress, DC - Aug 11, 2006… are going on there then maybe even in Iraq and we re having problems with the Tora Bora hills and trying to find Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri who seem very … [...]
August 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pmYes, MA, you and yours demonized McKinney, admittedly a loose cannon, for these types of comments:
"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to
come on September 11," McKinney said that day. "What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?" McKinney thought she knew the answer. "What is undeniable," she explained, "is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th."
She only echoed what a lot of American politicians were--and have been--thinking.
More and more, thanks to the likes of you, our nation has become a combination of a secret society running the government and zombies in the bodies of citizenry. Congratulations. You continue to prove a de-sensitized population can easily be manipulated into believing anything that spews from the mouths of traitors.
August 12th, 2006 at 10:54 pmOh, and give me the standard "demonizing" of Paul O'Neill---#258-259. The guy just wanted to sell books, right? Imagine, a cabinet member with a conscience.
August 12th, 2006 at 10:58 pm[...] * Bush lied about Saddam’s WMD and Al Qaeda connections so Americans would support an attack on Iraq, allocating resources to that war that could have been used to fight Al Qaeda. [...]
August 12th, 2006 at 11:00 pmpoor lost liberals
vitamins
patio furniture
cosmetic surgery
lasik texas
August 13th, 2006 at 10:43 amoutdoor grill
November Predictions:
Another Al Qaeda Attack
Another Bin Laden Video
Another Rigged Election
Another Republican Sponsored Supreme Court Decision
August 14th, 2006 at 3:12 amMahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has started a blog.
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/
In his first entry Ahmadinejad wrote about his childhood, the country's Islamic revolution and Iran's war with Iraq.
The blog also asks readers to participate in an online poll which asks if they think the United States and Israel are "pulling the trigger for another world war".
The blog is translated into English, French and Arabic.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:15 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 5:55 amPatrick
I just wanted to say that the quality of your site is exceptional. On top of all that it really complements the content that is provided by your site.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:28 amNational Cash Advance Loans
Thanks for this post!
March 17th, 2008 at 9:13 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pmBad Credit Loans Personal Loan Auto Loan Calculator
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 2:34 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 7:24 amLaticia
Attitude is the way you mentally look at the world around you. It is how you view your environment and your future. It is the focus you develop toward life itself.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:24 pmBurt Reynolds
I think your mother would be proud.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:37 amlebanon girls
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 21st, 2008 at 10:34 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:33 amPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 amResistance Training Equipment
Found your blog on yahoo - thanks for the article but i still don't get it.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pmGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 8:53 pmCheap Flights First Class Alien Flight Cheap Air Flights Airport Code
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 12:37 amNo Fax Payday Loans
Instant acrotarsium payday loans for Correctional Officers
March 26th, 2008 at 6:16 amEric
Have enjoyed your site very much and benefited from the information. Thank You.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:03 amAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog....
...Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a...
February 26th, 2009 at 4:52 amShag Hairstyles and Haircuts...
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word "shaggy" since ...once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from...
March 29th, 2009 at 11:38 pmArbonne skin care line overview...
Arbonne International is one of the leading companies in the world when it comes to beauty and skin care. Its skin care product line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne skin care products are formulated in Switzerl...
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 pm